Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.57 seconds)
Montana Valves And Compressors (P) Ltd. vs Commr. Of Cus. on 29 October, 1999 cites

B.K. Gooyee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 5 February, 1965

(7) Ld. Counsel referred to the case of B. K. Gooyee v. Commissioner of Income Tax. In support of his contention that notice under the Income Tax Act not containing signature of ITO is invalid. We note that the facts in that case were that the notice under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act did not bear the signature of the Income Tax Officer, it further transpired that office copy of same notice was not signed by the Income Tax Officer. In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that notice was invalid. In the instant case before us we find that the office copy of the SCN was initialled by the Commissioner and was attested by the AC and thus the facts in the two cases are different. So also can be said about the case of Shri Umashankar Mishra relied upon by the ld. Counsel of the appellants.
Calcutta High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. vs Assistant Collector Of C. Ex. on 4 March, 1988

27. We have considered the submissions of both sides. We find that the fact in this case and the case cited by the appellants are totally different. In the instant case before us there was no order proposing further signature of the issuing authority. Ld. DR submitted that in the case of Punalur Paper Mills Ltd. v. C.C., Cochin -1987 (31) E.L.T. 770, this Tribunal held -
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ashwin Prafulla Pimpalwar And Etc. vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 16 September, 1991

He submitted that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ashivin Prafulla Pimpalwar v. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1992 Bombay 233 in para 5.1 observed that "5.1. It has been well established by now that administrative instructions can also confer rights or impose duties. That was how the Supreme Court observed in Anglo Afghan Agencies that the Govt. was bound by representation in Export Promotion Scheme even if the Scheme is executive in character. The Government is bound to follow faithfully the norms prescribed by it, even if they are administrative instructions or executive orders.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 31 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Kedar Nath Bahl vs The State Of Punjab And Ors. on 5 October, 1978

Referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 220, the ld. Counsel submitted that the Apex Court held "At any rate the earlier order of the Chief Minister dated Oct. 13 could not give rise to any right in favour of the appellant as it was not expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166 of the Constitution. He submitted that in Article 166 of the Constitution of India, it has been set out that all executive action of the Govt, of a State shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the Governor".
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

State Of Kerala vs A. Lakshmikutty & Ors on 10 November, 1986

He also cited and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala v. Smt. A. Lakshmikutty and Ors. Ld. Counsel therefore, submitted that since Shri S.S. Shekhon was not appointed Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Mumbai, therefore, his exercise of power to issue the SCN and to adjudicate the case is without jurisdiction and submits that since SCN and adjudication order lack jurisdiction they are void ab initio, therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 125 - A P Sen - Full Document

Bachan Singh Etc. Etc vs State Of Punjab Etc. Etc on 16 August, 1982

In the case of Vashitra Singh v. State of Punjab, the Apex Court held that the order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Clauses 1 of Article 166 then it has to be communicated. Ld. DR submitted that promotion of Class I Officer is always in the name of the President and thus the requirement of Article 177 is always complied with.
Supreme Court of India Cites 112 - Cited by 863 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Commissioner Of ... vs Sri Keshab Chandra Mandal on 9 May, 1950

19. (1) Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that draft SCN was prepared by the Inspector on his own without any instructions of the Commissioner; that it does not have full signature of the Commissioner but only his initials that after initials on the DFA, SCN Shri Shekhon did not order to issue, thereof; that fair copy was not put up for signature. He submitted that where the intention of a statute requires personal signature of a person, the same should be that of that person himself. Ld. Counsel submitted that there must be physical contact between that person and the signature put on the document to support this contention. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax v. Keshao Chandra Mandal reported in AIR (37) 1950 S.C. 265.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 76 - Full Document
1   2 Next